KG

Back in February Valueexpectations.com released a blog highlighting Fidelity’s Low Priced Stock Fund that follows a strategy of only investing in stocks with a share price of under $35. In that blog we provided a list of 30 stocks that we thought were attractively priced according to The Applied Finance Group’s (AFG's) valuation model broken up into three price brackets: under $10, $10 to $20 and $20 to $35.

From Feb 5th 2009 to June 5th 2009 the 30 stocks recommended as a group outperformed the S&P 500 by an average of 36.5%, the 10 stocks under $10 outperformed by 57.1%, the $10 to $20 stocks outperformed by 40.1% and the $20 to $35 stocks outperformed by 12.5% respectedly. 

Joel Tillinghast, the fund’s manager began this fund with a strategy of only investing in stocks under $10. Since this stragtegy began Fidelity has moved the stock price limit to $35 where it currently sits. Tillinghast believes that share price alone is not of importance but the lower priced, smaller-cap universe of stocks experiences the most frequent mispricing’s and also has the least amount of analyst coverage.

As an update to the prior blog on this strategy Valueexpectations.com provided a list of 30 stocks that we believe are attractively priced and do not fit AFG's default sell criteria. Each group is ranked based on valuation attractiveness. AFG's analysis begins and ends with valuation, however along the way there are other key factors AFG considers when looking for buy opportunities: expected Economic Margin improvement, management quality, earnings quality.

Attractively Priced Companies Under $30

Below is a look at the YTD returns, valuation attractiveness and sales growth expectations of the two biggest and smallest companies in each sector within the S&P 500 (excluding financials). This link provides some insight into Applied Finance Group’s (AFG’s) valuation techniques. Also compare the expectations for sales growth to what the companies have delivered historically to see which stocks on this list are most likely to meet or exceed those expectations, and thus be more likely to out-perform.

 Biggest/Smallest Companies (Mkt Cap) By Sector S&P 500 (excluding financials)

*AFG’s Value Expectation allows us to understand the imbedded Sales Growth, EBITDA Margins, and Asset Turnovers a company has to deliver in the future to justify its current trading price. In theory and in normal circumstances, if the imbedded future performance is very conservative relative to the company’s historical performance, the stock is regarded as undervalued. The table displays the implied future sales growth of companies assuming their EBITDA margins and Asset turnovers stay at the 5 year median levels.

Fidelity’s Low Priced Stock Fund, which launched in 1989 (18 Billion AUM) and is managed by Joel Tillinghast, follows a simple strategy… Only invest in stocks with a share price under $35. This strategy first started with Tillinghast only investing in stocks below $10 a share, but later he moved the limit up to $35 a share. He argues that share price alone is not important but that the small-cap universe contains the most frequently mispriced stocks and the least amount of analyst coverage.

Although his fund at best has been a market performer as of late, Tillinghast had taken advantage of such mispricing’s during the last 15 years, averaging an 11% annual return compared to the 6% return earned by the S&P 500 over the same period. The fund had been closed to investors since 2003, but was recently reopened in December. Fidelity says they reopened the fund to get more cash inflow to be able to take advantage of all of the investment opportunities they see in the market.

Below is a list of the top holdings in Fidelity’s Low Priced Stock Fund as well as stocks that AFG believes are attractively priced in three price brackets: under $10, $10 to $20, and $20 to $35. Compare the implied sales growth priced-in to justify the current trading price (VE Sales Growth) vs. what the company has delivered in sales growth the past 5 years (5 Year Median Sales Growth) to see if the expectations are realistic for the company to achieve. The more realistic the expectations are, compared to what has been delivered, the more likely the firm will be to out-perform.

In life, the most attractive people are in shape and have good looks, just look at Hollywood. The same is true the majority of the time in investing. The most attractive stocks have healthy financial statements and look good from a valuation standpoint.

The Altman Z-score is a metric that gives insights into the likelihood of a firm going bankrupt in the next 2 years. The model was developed by Professor Edward I. Altman of the NYU’s Stern School of Business and first published in The Journal of FINANCE in September 1968. A common critique to this metric is that it was developed over 40 years ago and is no longer relevant.

In 2001, Professor Joseph D. Piotroski of The University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, published a paper called, Value Investing: The Use of Historical Financial Statement Information to Separate Winners from Losers. Piotroski showed that value investors were rewarded by looking at a firm’s financial health and he showed that Z-score was a meaningful statistic.
More recently, on December 5, 2008, Dr. Altman was called to testify before a House of Representatives Committee on the condition of U.S. Automakers. In his testimony, he noted that Bloomberg, Inc. reported, “that approximately 1,000 users of their system per day access the Altman Z-Score model.”

The Altman Z-Score breaks down firms into 3 zones:
• >2.99 – Not Likely to Go Bankrupt
• 1.8 - 2.99 – Gray Area
• <1.8 – Likely to Go Bankrupt in the Next 2 Years

Using AFGView.com, we screened for firms that looked relatively attractive from a valuation perspective and had an Altman Z-Score above 2.99. Below is a list of those firms. Later we will look at firms that are expensive and have a Z-Score below 1.8.

Sales Expectations for Companies with an Attractive Valuation and Healthy Balance Sheet

The companies on the top list are ten S&P 500 companies that have seen the best performance in the month of January over the past 5 years. Will these companies be able continue their hot streak in the month of January in 2009? Look for companies on the list that have low expectations for sales growth priced-in to justify their current stock price (VE Sales Growth) compared to what the firm has delivered in revenue growth over the last 5 years (5 Year Median Sales Growth). Companies with low expectations compared to what they have been able to deliver are the companies most likely to out-perform. Consistent returns in January coupled with low sales expectations are the companies you may want to look at as a possible investment.

The bottom list is the worst ten companies in median returns in the month of January over the past 5 years within the S&P 500. You may want to avoid the companies that have experienced tough times in January that also have high sales growth expectations compared to what they have been able to deliver the last 5 years.

S&P 500 Companies with the Best Returns in January – Last 5 Years

S&P 500 Companies with the Worst Returns in January - Last 5 Years

Economic Margin (EM) Defined - A measure of corporate performance that captures off balance sheet items, by looking at how much a company is earning above or below their cost of capital. EM is expressed in a % or margin. The Economic Margin Framework™ is more than just a performance metric as it encompasses a valuation system that explicitly addresses the four main drivers of enterprise value: profitability, competition, growth and cost of capital.

Here is a list of companies, two from each sector within the S&P 500 that are expected to improve their Economic Margins (EM) the most over the next two years along with the bottom two in each sector expected to have their EM’s deteriorate the most. Companies expected to improve their EM’s more than their sector peers have proven to be more likely to out-perform. Improving EM’s coupled with low expectations priced-in for sales growth are the companies on this list that may be worth a look as a potential investment.

Also included in this table is the implied sales growth priced-in over the next five years in order to justify the stock’s current trading price compared with their achieved 5 Year Median Sales Growth. Ask the question are the expectations for sales growth realistic compared with what revenue growth the firm has delivered in the last five years.

If you would like to learn more about the Economic Margin methodology or Value Expectations feel free to contact an AFG representative to schedule a web-demo at support@afgltd.com.

S&P 500 Companies with the Biggest Forecasted Change in Economic Margins